Talk:Progressive Conservative Party
Hey, would it be okay if we retroactively renamed this party to something else? It is currently almost exactly the same as the UK party in ideology, name, and logo. Here are some names I have thought of: *Progressive Conservative Party *Conservative Progressive Party *Libertarian Party *Rights' Party What does the rest of the community think? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:06, May 1, 2011 (UTC) Keep it the same. We had a Labour like england's so we should also have a conservative english party. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC) Labour wasn't quite the same as the English party, and why does that mean we should have a conservative english party? Lovia isn't that related to England. And also, who made all these random parties and then left them after a month? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:09, May 2, 2011 (UTC) No it was suppose to be that we had more political parties than the active ones. It's fine belive me. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:11, May 2, 2011 (UTC) Well, I don't like how we have weird parties like this that are exactly like another party in most ways. I'll create another political party that makes sense, and maybe we could refound a few political parties (and say they did not disband) that were unique. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:15, May 2, 2011 (UTC) No need. We can say they died peacefully, the best way. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:25, May 2, 2011 (UTC) No, that's dumb. Parties don't just die every month or so. Instead of creating new parties, let's restart old ones. On this party, I still think we should rename to a less British reminding name and change its logo if possible. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC) but that's the point it's suppose to be like the british party. And it's not normal it's Lovia Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:38, May 2, 2011 (UTC) Why?! Lovia is not the UK, and they aren't identical to it either. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:52, May 2, 2011 (UTC) True but lets say people haven't tried. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:03, May 2, 2011 (UTC) Then let's try. I think we should say that the LLCP never died, and that the Conservative party has another name. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:05, May 2, 2011 (UTC) ... Anyone have an idea? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:54, May 3, 2011 (UTC) Conservative Alliance still makes it seem like a CCPL-like party. . . —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:43, May 8, 2011 (UTC) No it doesn't CCPL is christian conservative. CA makes it seem like a modern liberal conservtive party. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:44, May 8, 2011 (UTC) How about Liberal Conservative Party? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:51, May 8, 2011 (UTC) :This seems like a National Party to me: in for a decent moral, supportive of the monarchy and with a classic liberal approach to economics. It of course all depends on whether you stress the conservative or liberal issues. 09:18, May 8, 2011 (UTC) Logo is perfect. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:21, May 8, 2011 (UTC) Join I want to join the progressive conservatives. They combine conservative elements with helping out people and I really like that approach. Aged youngman 11:18, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :Awesome. They need a member. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:29, May 15, 2011 (UTC) ::So do we. Preferably not a nutjob. You'd apply, Mr. Dae-su. The Master's Voice 11:31, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :::I still don't know about the UNS. It certainly appeals to me but I seek a more quiet and smaller party. I'm not much of a politician you see. Aged youngman 11:36, May 15, 2011 (UTC) ::::We are a small party. In fact, I am the only member. And you know what they say; the more, the merrier. The Master's Voice 11:37, May 15, 2011 (UTC) However, the UNS doesn't combine helping people and libertarianism with conservatism, which is what the PCP does do. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 11:38, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :I do support the UNS but would feel more at home in a less defined environment the PCP can provide me. No real program, no aspirations, just good intentions. Aged youngman 11:40, May 15, 2011 (UTC) ::We are all about helping people, though. And since we were only created recently after our predeccesor fell apart, we are still "a work in progress". Thought that might be a plus for a new name in politics. The Master's Voice 11:41, May 15, 2011 (UTC) :I want to enlarge the page a little but will stick to the original concept. You can change things in the name of our party leader if you dislike something. Aged youngman 11:59, May 15, 2011 (UTC) okay Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:02, May 15, 2011 (UTC) Question I made myself head of the party in Congress to have at least some function next to Congress member. Is that alright? Mister Bale does of course remain head of the party. Aged youngman 08:04, July 19, 2011 (UTC) Sure that's fine. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:24, July 19, 2011 (UTC) Revoking membership It would be the first time someone gets kicked out of his/her party. Well, I'm glad I never had to use such a mechanism to dispose of a member. 06:32, November 14, 2011 (UTC) :There is a first time for everything. The glorious First Consul of Rome 10:21, November 14, 2011 (UTC) ::I certainly hope not for I can name quite a few things I don't want to see happening for the first time. 11:55, November 14, 2011 (UTC) :::Hehe, so can I. :) The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:01, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Don't revoke Dae-su's membership, he has 6/7 of the party's members, and he never committed war crimes or anything like it. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:45, November 14, 2011 (UTC) :Well it's mainly for show. In most countries when the whip tells people to vote one way and they don't some actions are taken. Basically i'll say he's banned from the next two party conventions or some stuff. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:37, November 14, 2011 (UTC) ::You should give him a chance to defend himself though, even if 'just for show'. I'd like to see him explain. 06:47, November 15, 2011 (UTC) Take over @Timemaster - I'm looking to retire this party (congressionally for me at least) would you like to merge it into the SLP? or not? I'm not taking the Green Party, Animal Rights Party or this party within my delegation next election. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:45, October 31, 2012 (UTC) I'd say continue it until the next elections, then use disappointing results to give a reason for merger into PL, most likely, though SLP or CNP could also work. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:55, October 31, 2012 (UTC) I was actually thinking SLP because it lies ever so barley on the left of the spectrum. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:57, October 31, 2012 (UTC) Okay. . . for some reason, the party page says the party is centre left. It's supposed to be right wing, hence the "classical liberalism" tag. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:00, October 31, 2012 (UTC) I think the CNP could absorb this party nicely :) Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:15, October 31, 2012 (UTC) If it has conservative economic values but progressive social values, it seems to fit the bill for social liberalism a little more than classical liberalism. Nevertheless, there is nothing in its party plan regarding social progressivism that seems beyond what the PL advocates, so really, I could see it merging with either the CNP, PL, or the SLP pretty seamlessly. Besides, the PL could always use a viewpoint a little more left to help even things out. What do you say? :P — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 21:21, October 31, 2012 (UTC) That's exactly what classical liberalism is. Economic conservatism, often mixed with social progressivism. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:31, October 31, 2012 (UTC) :Come on, I can't still have it wrong. I follow classical liberalism as opposed to modern liberalism and the modern interpretation of social liberalism. I am economically a conservative and socially a libertarian. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 00:10, November 1, 2012 (UTC) ::That's right (it's classical liberalism). But you're not in the political centre or a social liberal with those views. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:06, November 2, 2012 (UTC) ::I think this should be merged into a party soon. Happy65 Talk CNP ''' ' 09:23, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :::I agree, it's time to start cleaning up our politics a bit. I'm also thinking about fusing the Romanian and Limburgish minority parties into a single Lovian minority party, but as I'm no longer in charge of the LMP, I'm not sure whether that's gonna work out well. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:55, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :::: I agree ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ' ' 10:06, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :::Exactly Time. — Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat • ) 12:37, November 4, 2012 (UTC) Well, I wouldn't mind having a few testimonial parties, like the ARP and RTP. I'm also doubting an RMP-LMP merger as they represent separate minorities. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:41, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :That's true, but combined they would have more strength I guess :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:55, November 4, 2012 (UTC) : BUt then they might become the majority :( and their name wouldn't make sense Yeah i'm doing the same, I'm basically ending down these small parties or making them local Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:40, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::I'm still hoping on the day that 50%+ of Lovians is Limburgish speaking, but I don't think that'll be soon :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:46, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :::Parties that want to change national things can't do much locally. Also, I was thinking of learning Dutch and then Limburgish from it, but it'll be a while before I do. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:47, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::Hahah, actually, if you speak a "real" Germanic language (so, not English :P), it is easier to learn it reverse, cause Dutch is just simpler Limburgish. Of course for a non-Germanic or English speaker learning Dutch is probably best to do first 'cause you won't be bothered with a five case system and umlaut verb conjugations immediately :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:50, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::I consider English to be a Germanic language with tons of French mixed in. Wouldn't it be easier to learn Dutch first, then? And I also wanted to learn Swedish and maybe German later on. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:51, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::::That's true, but grammatically it's just no longer Germanic, sentence construction being creole-alike, hardly any inflections etc. Yeah, Dutch and Swedish are probably easiest (Swedish being grammatically and vocabulary-technically slightly closer to English). German is a midway between Limburgish and Dutch, grammatically seen :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:56, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :::::::I heard somewhere that Swedish was the easiest of the Germanic languages to learn. Is that true? I can also speak French at an intermediate level, because I don't have all the tenses and vocab memorized, would that help with Romanian? :P —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:06, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::I study Scandinavian languages at university, and I must say that Swedish and Norwegian are quite close when it comes to difficulty. But yeah, they are probably easiest (less inflections, quite straight spellings, a lot of "universal" words etc). ::::::::Romanian and French have had some contact (esp. French words entering Romanian), but the grammar really is different :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:11, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :(reset) Okay, I'll look into learning Dutch and Swedish soon. Read the below comment, svp. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:15, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::I wish you good luck :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:18, November 4, 2012 (UTC) Anyway, we need to decide which party to merge PCP into. SLP, PL, CNP, or another? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:06, November 4, 2012 (UTC) :SLP is most progressive in my eyes and CNP most conservative. I'm not familiar with the party lines, so that's what you guys have from me :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:18, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::I'd say that the party would split disolve with most members going to CNP and SLP. Other parties can claim a few members joined them but I think the majority should go to these two groups :) Hoffmann KunarianTALK' 20:32, November 4, 2012 (UTC) ::It has a few members but just 1 MOTC, who should get the MOTC? ' Happy65 ' ' Talk CNP ''' 07:45, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :::No one, it's merging into another party. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 12:03, November 7, 2012 (UTC)